The creation of everything... How?

We all waiting for you to post links that show how all the new findings that had discredit Halton claims and support the big bang theory over the last forty years are in error.

In fact, his work had been discredit to at least the same degree as the steady state theory had been discredit.

Halton seem to be the only scientist in the field who is supporting his theory in the same manner as Fred Hoyle never gave up on his steady state theory.

It is always easy to distinguish any cosmological model from reality. The exception being the cosmological model you operate with (believe in).

I am sure that the model of a god and a ghost and a son who created the heaven and the earth should carry the same weight as the big bang theory.

Or for that matter the tens of thousands of others such fantasies that mankind had come up.

I do not know where you got the idea that I believe in god and ghosts.
Perhaps you are just being presumptious.

Did you read the article by Einstein? If not, do it. There is really no point in arguing this when you can just read it from one of the most relevant scientists of the twentieth century.

I had read many things written by Einstein so you are going to need to narrow it down somewhat. Off hand I do not remember him addressing the big bang theory one way or another,

Second comment we all get set in our ways as we age, examples being Edison rejection of using high voltage three phase AC and Einstein rejection of quantum mechanics so whatever his position on the then new big bang theory at the end of his life seem not by itself to carry a lot of weight.

I still would be interest in reading whatever you are referring to if you give a link.

The one I linked previously in this thread.

It doesn't deal directly with big bang theory, but deals with science and religion, and their functions. It can perhaps give you a better perspective of what I am trying to say, or at least give you a perspective in which you can appreciate my meanings.

Please repost this link as going back looking for it would be a pain.

Second comment the gentleman was attacked for being an atheist after WW2 and was told he should go back to Germany if he was not a believer by the then Christian right wing.

He did used the term god but not in any religion manner that I am aware of.

Once more please repost that link.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Here's a quote from the text:
"Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization."

Note words like "association" and "process of conceptualization".

Even though religious attempts at explaining the origin of existence follow very different methods and have different emphasis on what is important, any theory, be it dreamed up or derived from facts, is a matter of association and conceptualization.

Einstein and I am in agreement that the sense of wonder and the human drive to understand the universe is the reason why we have both science and religion.

However religion is not helpful in understating the universe and never had been even if it give some emotional comfort at a great cost however.

I probably edited while you were on the link. In case you missed it, scroll up, please.

Emotional not reasoning or facts…………..and there are some emotional benefit of religions at one hell of a price however.



In other word religion should not take a stand on the real universe in order it to be able to exist such as now concerning the matter as how the universe had been born IE big bang.

Einstein in fact clearly does not believe in any form of a supernatural being able to **** up natural laws of the universe at his or her whim.

What Einstein consider religion is not what most people would consider religion with some being that will change the laws of the universe to aid you if only you pray to the proper god in the proper manner.

There are two kinds of basic problems with the "big bang" idea. One is that it is based on a totally wrong interpretation of redshift data. Halton Arp and others have shown multiple instances of high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things, clearly refuting the entire basis of big-bang.

But the really big problems with the idea are philosophical. Show me a scientist who can expound the big bang idea and keep his face straight, and I'll show you a man who couldn't pass the most basic sort of a philosophy or logic course. In fact I'll show you a man who needs to be horsewhipped, the idea is so flagrantly ludicrous.

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to bang its way out of that?

Aside from that, time appears to stretch out to infinity both before us and behind us and to my knowledge, there is no evidence for believing anything else. Suppose a big bang DID occur 17 billion years ago.: is time supposed to have STARTED 17 billion years ago? If so, how and why? If not, then an infinite amount of time existed prior to the big bang; the mass of the universe would have sat there at its starting point literally forever prior to that event; why would a situation with an infinite past change?

Are we supposed to believe that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs and then big contractions to the original everything-at-a-point condition? The big contraction would be an absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact they don't even have enough real mass in a single galaxy to explain why it doesn't fly apart and are reduced to talking about "dark matter" supposedly making up 95% of the universe (you'd be vacuming the stuff up off your carpet every day if that were the case).

Big bang is a philosophical and scientific morass which competent scientists have given up on; like evolution it is only being defended by dead wood and second-raters at the present time.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

http://www.cosmologystatement.org

Oh, yeah, the idea that some of the second-raters and dead wood have "debunked(TM)" Arp... That must be why the Max Planck Institute picked him up after he'd been banned from American observatories for heretic views in the United States. Kind of like the story of the ugly duckling which turned out to be a swan.

I see you are going to get your talking points from websites created by the same nuts that more then likely created anti-evolution nonsense websites.

I suggest you try the public library instead and some scientific textbooks for information.



Your question have no meaning as the big bang was a singularity event where information can not cross.



Sorry once more Halton evidences had been found to be in error for over twenty years now. Once more see any modern science text book on the subject.



Matter dark or not dark bend light and result in lensing effects that is well known and by that means there is zero question that dark matter is real and it had been detected in great amounts. More then enough to keep galaxies from flying apart.



Fred Hoyle was a respect man in his field to his death even if no one could understand why he kept to his steady state theory of the universe long after it was proven wrong beyond question. One can assume that Halton did not loss all respect for the same reason that Hoyle did not.

Here your dark matter gungasnake that you and the crazy websites you go to claims does not exist.

Once more the word is gravitational lensing.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/rg/galaxies/dark_matter_in_galaxies.html

RG Research: Dark Matter in Galaxies

For some time now, it has been known that most of the matter in galaxies is invisible--so called dark matter. Dark matter cannot be detected directly, its effects can only be inferred gravitationally. However, "weighing" a galaxy is no simple task. The phenomenon of gravitational lensing provides a powerful way to measure the dark matter in galaxies. Gravitational lensing occurs when the radiation from a distant source is bent by the gravity of a massive object, like a galaxy, that lies between us and the source. When this happens, the source appears highly distorted and multiple images of it can be seen around the lensing galaxy.

Since gravitational lensing is sensitive to all the matter in a galaxy, including the dark matter, it tells us about the total mass in a galaxy. By subtracting the mass in stars and gas, it is possible to measure the properties of the dark matter in galaxies.

RG astronomers are using this technique to study the basic morphology of the dark matter in galaxies to test theories of galaxy formation. Since gravitational lensing is achromatic, it affects radiation from the source across the electromagnetic spectrum, from x-rays down to radio waves. Although many of the known gravitational lenses have been discovered at optical wavelengths, an advantage of using radio wavelengths is that the radio waves pass virtually untouched through the lensing galaxy. This allows us to study the lensing effect, and hence dark matter properties, over a range of distances from the center of the lensing galaxy.

Here is 3 d mapping of part of the Dark matter in the universe Gunasnake.

The real universe is so must more amazing and wonderful then any make up god such as the Christian/Jewish god.

You're right, that is sorry. You can't just wish stuff like this away:



Trying to claim something like that amounts to something 50 quadrillion light years away behind something just a few hundred is grabbing for straws and wishful thinking.

I'm not interested in bullshit.

So a mapping project that involved the Hubble space telescope and the government and years of work by a numbers of top universities is bullshit because you do not care for the results????

That the very best you can come up with?

Here is some more "bullshit" dealing with the mapping in details of the early universe by background radiation from the big bang.

Of course top scientists using hundreds of millions dollars of hardware can not compare with the king jame bible.